millsart wrote:
The amount of you can uprez the DP2M shots and still retain good detail is pretty phenomenal.



My personal opinion and taste is that the DP2M files don't uprez well at all. The jaggies and crunchiness is unpalatable to me.

For printing at native resolution though, it will likely produce phenomenally crisp prints.

alundeb wrote:
millsart wrote:
The amount of you can uprez the DP2M shots and still retain good detail is pretty phenomenal.



My personal opinion and taste is that the DP2M files don't uprez well at all. The jaggies and crunchiness is unpalatable to me.

For printing at native resolution though, it will likely produce phenomenally crisp prints.



What camera's files do you feel uprez well ?

I like the M9's files upressed.

millsart wrote:
The amount of you can uprez the DP2M shots and still retain good detail is pretty phenomenal.

alundeb wrote:
My personal opinion and taste is that the DP2M files don't uprez well at all. The jaggies and crunchiness is unpalatable to me.

For printing at native resolution though, it will likely produce phenomenally crisp prints.

millsart wrote:
What camera's files do you feel uprez well ?


Your question is escaping from my point. While we need a bigger Bayer image to resolve the same absolute detail as a Foveon image, the Foveon image uprezzed to the Bayer image size does not look as good. The point is that you are comparing to other sensors that don't need uprezzing as much.

But to answer your question:
I feel that all unsharpened RAW converted Bayer images uprez well. That means, the image content (soft or sharp) is enlarged with minimal artifacts. Images with weak or no AA filter like the M9 or D800E also uprez better than the DP2M in my opinion.

FlyPenFly wrote:
Ultimately, it seems so far it's a great idea with terrible execution.

This seems like good summary. If I may, I'd revise it a little by saying that it looks like a great sensor inside a terrible camera.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

One of the more interesting aspects of the Foveon sensor is how it handles aliasing. Aliasing is still present here, but we got rid of the color moire. Still it does not tell how this pattern looks in reality. None of the images do.

Yakim Peled wrote:
FlyPenFly wrote:
Ultimately, it seems so far it's a great idea with terrible execution.

This seems like good summary. If I may, I'd revise it a little by saying that it looks like a great sensor inside a terrible camera.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Very easy and wrong conclusion.

It is actually quiet a sturdy and straightforward designed camera. The AF is rather good. The lens is great.
The buffer is quiet good. It is like a Hasselblad in your pocket for €999,-

At least you upgraded from "a great idea" to "a great sensor" The potency of this sensor is (already) extraordinary. Counting 50 mb, the files must carry a lot of information.
It takes a lot of PP for me to get my NEX-7 files halfway near it in sharpness and crispyness. I am looking forward to use it on a tripod with panohead.

This camera is not ment for fast photojournalists and yes it is not (yet) a low light camera. It needs some carefull handling and time to get the best out of it.

But nobody is obliged to buy it, but to come to such simple conclusions without ever actually using one is a bit simplistic at least.

sculptormic wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
FlyPenFly wrote:
Ultimately, it seems so far it's a great idea with terrible execution.

This seems like good summary. If I may, I'd revise it a little by saying that it looks like a great sensor inside a terrible camera.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Very easy and wrong conclusion.

It is actually quiet a sturdy and straightforward designed camera. The AF is rather good. The lens is great.
The buffer is quiet good. It is like a Hasselblad in your pocket for €999,-

At least you upgraded from "a great idea" to "a great sensor" The potency of this sensor is (already) extraordinary. Counting 50 mb, the files must carry a lot of information.
It takes a lot of PP for me to get my NEX-7 files halfway near it in sharpness and crispyness. I am looking forward to use it on a tripod with panohead.

This camera is not ment for fast photojournalists and yes it is not (yet) a low light camera. It needs some carefull handling and time to get the best out of it.

But nobody is obliged to buy it, but to come to such simple conclusions without ever actually using one is a bit simplistic at least.


Think of it this way - Would you or anyone else buy it if it had a regular sensor, e.g. Sony's 16MP which is considered by many to be a great APS-C sensor? I think that most will answer 'No' to that question. They are willing to put up with all the handicaps this camera imposes on you just because of the output of the sensor. Hence, I still think that my definition is correct.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Another simplyfication.

Of course I would not buy this camera if it hadn't this suburb sensor, but I am sure I don't want to buy all comparable sized camera with 1000 and 1 possibilitys, because I am spoiled now.
I don't feel handicaped with this camera as long as you realize what you can do it well; take razorsharp images at 100 till 400 ISO or use it on a tripod.
And think about the huge quality/weight advantage of this camera. No need to lug a heavy MF or DSLR around. (again for certain kind of images.)
For other kind of work use another camera.

Horses for courses.

People always want everything perfect in one camera. I have never seen one till now. The Leica M looks like it but then I looked through the stick up EVF and thought I wished I looked through my NEX-7 viewfinder. So nothing is ever perfect.

Michiel

sculptormic wrote:
Horses for courses.

As always.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

The DP2M looks like a very intriguing photographic device. Kudos to Sigma for having the guts to swim upstream and keep on developing FOVEON tech.

I don't know... someone - was it sculptormic - referred to the DP2M as akin to having a Hasselblad in one's pocket, and I think this idea hits the nail on the head (this is coming from someone who's never even held a Hassy let alone shoot one: this is purely based on my image of Hasselblad as a camera maker). I still have this strange feeling that had this camera been developed and released by Hasselblad (instead of the Lunar), it would have garnered much more interest and praise. Sigma, however, is still burdened with the baggage from the days of releasing cheap and mediocre zoom lenses, and their cameras appear to go pretty much unnoticed by the public, while only photography enthusiasts/landscape shooters have a soft spot for them.

Or do pros/average joes actually use Sigma cameras? I really don't know, but I doubt it.

Anyway, hopefully Sigma is able to avoid the Kodak fate. The Foveon/DP2M images really have many virtues, and Sigma appears to take pride in what they do.

Jaakko

alundeb wrote:
My personal opinion and taste is that the DP2M files don't uprez well at all. The jaggies and crunchiness is unpalatable to me.

Some of this may be that most existing uprez techniques/programs are designed to work with the typical pixel-level softness of other cameras. The uprez algorithm focuses on identifying slightly blurry edges and adding sharpness along with more pixels in the enlarged image for a sense of fine resolution. DP2M images will simply require a different approach, one that emphasizes smoothing off jagged edges more than sharpening soft ones --- more similar to pixel art scaling algorithms like this. I suspect people will learn to adjust and refine their uprezzing techniques (along with possible availability of new software), that the results will look much better.

In some ways, perhaps it can be viewed as a "good" thing the DP2M is less than ideal as far as a mainstream camera goes.

I can only imagine the increased popularity, and thus increased prices they could get away with charging for it, if it happened to have amazing batter life, blazing fast AF, a great OVF or EVF, fast burst rates etc.

For those who are happy working slowing from a tripod and just who are after the best IQ in a compact package though, none of it really matters, and luckily the small demand, in the large overall picture, is a big part of why we are able to get one for $999.

If the SD15m likewise was a huge hit even at its $10k price, no way you'd be getting the same sensor tech for 1/10th the price.

I of course applaud Sigma for producing such a product, warts and all, so I do want to see them succeed, yet at the same time, part of me would be glad to see the DP's be a real bomb. I'd like to see a DP1M being blown out for $499 or so because they have been sitting on shelves for months.

I imagine many in this thread, even that aren't tempted at the current prices, do indeed have a price point where they may want to pick one up down the road if it drops cheap enough.

On the flipside though, only with the camera being a huge success could we hope to see a DP3 model ever come out, perhaps with some issues and limitations improved upon.

I'd like to think someone in HQ there is a meeting going on where some exec's are saying hey, we've got a lot of attention of this camera, and they are selling better than we planned, but some folks still aren't buying. If we can just work on X, Y, and Z, we could become a major player in the market for 2013

millsart wrote:
In some ways, perhaps it can be viewed as a "good" thing the DP2M is less than ideal as far as a mainstream camera goes.

I can only imagine the increased popularity, and thus increased prices they could get away with charging for it, if it happened to have amazing batter life, blazing fast AF, a great OVF or EVF, fast burst rates etc.

For those who are happy working slowing from a tripod and just who are after the best IQ in a compact package though, none of it really matters, and luckily the small demand, in the large overall picture, is a big part of why we are able to get one for $999.


no. that's not how economics works. if they produced a camera that could attract a much larger market they could produce it in larger volumes (as far as i know sigma doesn't have the production limitations that leica does), which would in fact make it substantially cheaper to produce and lowering the price would almost certainly maximize their profits. note: this assumes that making such a camera wouldn't change the price of it's materials.

Yes. It would be nice when both cameras sell well. It would mean better prices and encouragement for faster and further development of the Foveon sensors. Foveon deserves it.
It is a pitty that only Sigma (can) use them, because of their short experience in camera making.
But who knows. If they could make a FF DSLR with a Foveon sensor, I would take for granted to lug a DSLR around again. And I know they can make very good lenses.

Got to disagree with you on that one, sure in basic macro economics one learns about economies of scale and such, but it totally ignores the factor of consumer behavior to say the least.

Is the Hassy Lunar a $7000 NEX7 with some fancy wood because of small volume production ? Of course not, its priced that high because its what they think they can get for it.

Camera's are all simply priced at cost of production +15% markup across the board

If they could sell a hypothetical DP3 for $2500 (assuming it was a great camera all around) it would be silly to sell it for $800 just because increased volume could lower production cost.

Higher end photography gear, like most enthusiast hobby equipment, its usually not purchased just based upon price, but the total overall value the consumer places upon it.

There are limits of course, but as an extreme example, is the target buyer for a Leica 50 Nocti really going to buy or not buy if it was, say $1000 more or less expensive ? No

Its not like they are sitting in Solms thinking if they could find a way to up product 15% they could then price it cheaper and sell far more.

Just doesn't work like that in the real world on that type of product because the economy of scale can't factor in the strange and illogical human factor very well.

We simply don't often make rational buying decision and are driven by our wants more than our needs, especially in terms of hobby items.

Its basically "ooooo shiney, me want" rather than "hmmm, I wonder what the overhead on this item is because I would hate to pay an inflated margin"

Its largely irrational.

When setting a market price its first of course, how much does it cost us and how much profit do we need to make, but that is hardly where the pricing talk ends.

It then goes onto "hmmm, how much do we think people would be willing to pay for this"

Looks at some of Fuji's recent pricing strategies, they don't even announce the price, then toss out some numbers, judge response and then settle in on what its going to cost.

Its not about what it cost to me, its about what they think people will pay

millsart wrote:

Camera's are all simply priced at cost of production +15% markup across the board

If they could sell a hypothetical DP3 for $2500 (assuming it was a great camera all around) it would be silly to sell it for $800 just because increased volume could lower production cost.



Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but these two comments seem to directly contradict each other.

There's definitely some irrationality at the higher end of camera pricing, where they behave as Veblen goods, which Leicas most certainly are. However I don't think you can really consider the DP2M as a Veblen good.

millsart wrote:
Got to disagree with you on that one, sure in basic macro economics one learns about economies of scale and such, but it totally ignores the factor of consumer behavior to say the least.

Is the Hassy Lunar a $7000 NEX7 with some fancy wood because of small volume production ? Of course not, its priced that high because its what they think they can get for it.

Camera's are all simply priced at cost of production +15% markup across the board

If they could sell a hypothetical DP3 for $2500 (assuming it was a great camera all around) it would be silly to sell it for $800 just because increased volume could lower production cost.

Higher end photography gear, like most enthusiast hobby equipment, its usually not purchased just based upon price, but the total overall value the consumer places upon it.

There are limits of course, but as an extreme example, is the target buyer for a Leica 50 Nocti really going to buy or not buy if it was, say $1000 more or less expensive ? No

Its not like they are sitting in Solms thinking if they could find a way to up product 15% they could then price it cheaper and sell far more.

Just doesn't work like that in the real world on that type of product because the economy of scale can't factor in the strange and illogical human factor very well.

We simply don't often make rational buying decision and are driven by our wants more than our needs, especially in terms of hobby items.

Its basically "ooooo shiney, me want" rather than "hmmm, I wonder what the overhead on this item is because I would hate to pay an inflated margin"

Its largely irrational.

When setting a market price its first of course, how much does it cost us and how much profit do we need to make, but that is hardly where the pricing talk ends.

It then goes onto "hmmm, how much do we think people would be willing to pay for this"

Looks at some of Fuji's recent pricing strategies, they don't even announce the price, then toss out some numbers, judge response and then settle in on what its going to cost.

Its not about what it cost to me, its about what they think people will pay

Dude, no. it's about profit maximization within production and distribution constraints. $800 profit per camera on 10,000 cameras sucks compared to a $50 profit on 500,000 cameras. yes, obviously demand curves play a big role in this as well as supply curves. pricing gets tweaked a lot because cameras actually are pretty elastic goods and camera producers often misjudge their market. we're not talking about 15% increase in production here though, we're talking about an order of magnitude increase in production. finally leica is a terrible example, because unlike sigma, they can't drastically increase production without a huge expenditure of capital on sunk costs (which incidently they did recently anyway). also, this all falls under microeconomic theory (or business) not macroeconomic theory.

Sigma DP2 Merill for black and white.

As far as I know, the camera market is a paradigm of demand/supply/price curves work. They aren't a veblen good like high end cars or watches.

What do you think Sigma would prefer?

Assume production/warranty/support/shipping/inventory costs for a DP camera is $500 per unit.
Assume R&D for this series of camera is 5,000,000 a year for staff and facilities.

100,000 DP cameras sold in 1 year for $1000 = $50,000,000 - 5,000,000 R&D = $45,000,000 profit
900,000 DP cameras sold in 1 year for $650 = $135,000,000 - 5,000,000 R&D = $130,000,000 profit

Except in the 900,000 case you will also benefit from per unit costs declining as efficiencies are gained during the manufacturing cycles of the product.

So yeah, selling MORE is always good (assuming capacity is not an issue) UNLESS you're talking about brand equity and demand declining due to perceived exclusivity dying from sales. That's a Veblen good. Not even a Leica is strictly a veblen good, I doubt Sigma will be.